More responses to Annon
Annon -- and if you want to keep this up at least give me a first name -- has comments under the prior post. You can go there to read all his points. His points are in italics this time.
There is no doubt in my mind that the civilized world will be the victor in this clash of civilizations.
Why? I think the odds run the other way.
America's standing in the free world has gone … to a treacherous low since Iraq.
There are far more important things that being loved, and far more issues at play than you imply.
If, as you say, invading Iraq was the next essential step in the war on terror, what happened to all of the support?
Why do you think a policy of actually fighting and trying to win the WOT would be popular?
… the President wasn't honest about what he was doing.
On the contrary, he was quite honest and explicit. As for showing leadership, the world continues to dance to the tune he is playing even if they don’t like it.
… in addition to winning the war on terror, he must win the hearts and minds of Americans and our allies.
Nah, I’ll settle for simply winning. As for allies like the coalition of the bribed (Saddam, France, Germany, Russia) why do you persist in considering them allies? If France is an ally, we really have no need for enemies.
You question why the administration would have wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11?
Nope. It was a good idea strategically pre-9/11 but was essentially impossible to do. After 9/11 it became both possible and necessary. You do know that regime change was the official policy of the United States, codified in law, under the Clinton Administration in 1998?
Kerry talked real brave about doing something about Saddam back in '98. Even Teddy Kennedy did. That way they could pretend to be a hawk when they knew there was zero chance the United States would do anything. Damn that President Bush, he didn't simply talk.
He could have gone after terrorists is Syria or Lebanon. He could have attacked the fundamentalist strains in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Pakistan. He could have gone after them in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia.
No, he could not. Here you are complaining we aren't loved for what we did in Iraq and you suggest we could have done things that would have had vastly less support than attacking Iraq?
We went for the soft target that would yield the most gain for the lowest price. Considering your list: Syria and Lebanon (One war at a time, please). Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (Not smart, pressure is having some effect). Iran – we have a potential for an anti-Mullah revolution and an invasion would blow that and be too costly. Egypt and Indonesia – are you out of your mind?
In other news, catch this from Mickey Kaus:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future? (It wouldn't necessarily make the Iraq war prudent, but it would make Americans feel more comfortable about it than what Bush has been telling them.)
Peace
For some (military) humor, check out www.skippyslist.com
posted by john @ 8:00 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
John - You can call me Achilles
I've been busy with a new baby at home, so I haven't had much time to respond. In the meanwhile, I read the "Deterrence" and the "Legand" articles that you cited, as well as one that a commenter posted about the Third Jihad. I've also read Norman Podhoretz's article in Commentary on World War IV, which is by far the most erudite discussion of the neocon position that I've seen. The commenter who cited the Third Jihad article should read that Podhoretz piece because it really fills in, with a great deal more intellectual rigor, how we got into this mess and what neocons think GWB is doing about it.
I think I understand the position that all of these writers, and you, take. In fact, as I stated earlier, I'm in favor of the "War on Terror." But, to be honest, since that phrase was coined, I have objected calling it a war on "terror" since terrorism is really just a tactic. It's like saying we're at war with "cavalry attacks." You don't go to war against a tactic. You go to war against an enemy. In this case, I think the enemy is militant Muslim fundamentalists who have sworn to fight a holy war against America. I'll call it the war on "jihadists" for short. I believe it's a mistake to say we're at war with "terrorists" because that term does not explain who our enemy is -- and in so doing makes it impossible to define victory. (It reminds me of two unwinnable "wars" of the 20th Century: the wars on "poverty" and "drugs." I'd hope that in the 21st Centrury we could learn to stop waging wars against immutable concepts.)
Although I support the war on jihadists, I don't support our President. I object to GWB's approach to this war because of his lack of credibility. And, his unapologetic refusal to accept a responsibility to be credible. I think this is because he doesn't have the ability to express his ideas in a credible way. He could be, but is not, a great leader. There are so many good people out there making good points about what we need to do in response to the jihadists, so why can't our President maintain a credible position and lead the nation -- and the world -- in this fight?
We have a President who freely admits that he doesn't speak English that well. I honestly believe this is the root of the problem. It's hard to respect him. The guy went to Yale AND Harvard, and he doesn't speak English that well? Ronald Reagan may have played the "country bumkin" act, but he did it in a way that made it hard not to respect him. GWB can't pull it off. He doesn't understand the need to be credible and persuasive in presenting his position as the leader of the free world.
The people who are advising him are also giving him some bad information. The whole WMD debacle is the prime example. You can make post hoc rationalizatoins how there are lots of good reasons to be in Iraq, but the fact is that the WMDs were the centerpiece of the Administration's position, and now they're admitting that they were just plain wrong. (Well, Bush can't identify any mistakes, which is just another example of how the guy just lacks credibility. One would think that any good leader would be ready to answer a simple question like that.)
When I complain about the loss of support America had after 9/11, I'm not saying that the French were our "bestest buddies." What I'm saying is that, even our weakest ally, the French, were shocked and threatened by the extent to which the jihadist's hatred of the West had become a violent struggle, and even the French supported doing something violent about it. When else since D-Day could you say that France supported American military action?
So, given the reality that America had as much support as it is possible for America to have (nb: in a world that doesn't entirely support us), what did this President do? He had carte blanche to craft a response to 9/11 -- and, by extension, the jihad that spawned it. The world supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Not without detractors, of course, but the support was there. This is due to one thing -- credibility. On 9/20 GWB identified Osama bin Laden as our enemy, and he said Osama was in Afghanistan. And, guess what, it turned out to be true -- so the world was still on our side.
The next step was the tough one. And, in my opinion, he blew his credibility. He mixed the need to pursue American interests with an ideological point about showing the UN and Europe that we're tougher than they are. He abandoned his mission of pursuing Osama. He pinned his logic on WMDs. He claimed that Saddam had something to do with 9/1l. Had he been right about those things, this would not be a contested election. The subsequent failure to support those claims, however, undermines his credibility. And that's a problem for me because it makes it much, much tougher for us to actually continue this war in other theatres -- theatres where, I believe, we have a better chance of actually dealing with militant Muslim fundamentalism.
The war on jihadists is about a lot more than just Afghanistan and Iraq. (And, just to head off your response, let me point out that I agree that Iraq is now a part of the war on terror, but it wasn't in my view the next necessary step, and in fact it was a mistake.)
I don't mean to understate the benefits of this President's actions. It's wonderful that we've replaced the Taliban with a more tolerant regime (at least in the areas they control). It's marvelous that Afghanistan held elections. It will be marvelous if Iraq can do so. These are all great things, but they're only a small fraction of what we need to do to fight this war.
This war, like the Cold War, has a strong ideological component. The battle on the ground is important but, as in Vietnam, you can win every single battle and still lose the "war." In a military sense, we could have stayed in Vietnam and kicked some serious Viet Kong butt, but we lost the battle of ideas at home. The prevailing view in America was that we were losing and we needed to pull out.
The war in Iraq is as much, if not more so, a war of ideas, both at home and abroad. Neocons can bitch and moan about how hard the left makes it to pursue wars like Vietnam and Iraq, but get over it. It's what being an American President is all about. I can't respect a view that says America shold "go it alone" or "to hell" with the Europeans, the UN, and everyone else. It's like Richard Nixon said: "Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
Can our military beat any other army on the planet? You bet your friggin ass. It's no contest. But, launching armies, killing people and landing on an aircraft carrier has is a small part of winning a geopolitical struggle. If we launch our troops, then it is important to support them, and to win the military battles. But, if you want to win the war, you must have a sustainable, credible position. If you have an enemy on the offensive against you, as in WWII, then having a credible reason to fight back is not too tough to do. But, it is tougher when the enemy is unseen, not on a visible offensive, and largely unknown.
The President, in taking any military action, had to be conscious of the responsibility he has to the American people, and the world, of being credible. "Vietnam syndrome" is a reality of American politics, and any military action by our President has to take that debilitating fact of American politics into account. If you recall, George Bush the elder specifically did not invade Baghdad because of the concern that it would put us in a quagmire.
Unlike George Bush the elder, however, GWB had public and international support for another attack after Afghanistan. He knew that there was a possibility of Vietnam syndrome setting in. And, yet, he went ahead without addressing those issues. It plays right into the hands of our detractors, the blame-America-first crowd, the French, the jihadists. Just look at what happened in Spain and other places where our original "coalition" has suffered serious defeats.
I don't believe this President carried out his responsibilities effectively, or with integrity. In so doing, I think he's made America less safe. In my heart, I do not believe that America or the world is a safer place because Saddam Hussein is gone. We are at just as much risk of a 9/11 type attack today as we were before we invaded Iraq. What would prevent another attack on American soil is bolstering American defenses, and pursuing al Qaeda.
From what we suspected before, and know now for sure, Saddam had little or nothing to do with al Qaeda. He was not a serious threat to American security. He was a big threat to his own people. He wasn't a nice man. But there are people out there who are actual threats to America.
Now that we are in Iraq, should we exploit that position to the fullest extent to keep the fight off American shores? Absolutely, but only to the extent we can do so without compromising our ability to fight this important war on other fronts -- and in particular the home front. Let me be clear -- winning the war in Iraq will NOT win the war on militant fundamentalist Muslim jihadists. America will not be any safer if there are elections in Iraq in January.
Let me also point out that I do not take this position lightly because I believe I am personally at risk. I live in New York. I was across the street from the World Trade Center when the bomb went off in 1993. In 2001, I watched the second jet hit the South Tower in front of my eyes. In fact I was close enough that I had to run for cover from the debris falling from the towers. My brother was in a building even closer, and he could not leave his building because of the debris. So, if one thinks that my views somehow weaken America or put us more at risk, then let me tell you I think you're playing with my life and I don't appreciate it. I just don't think someone who lives in Dallas has the same personal risk that New Yorkers do. And, despite the President's mantra that "America is safer," most New Yorkers vocally disagree.
I have my views because I think they will make America, and my family, strongest and safest. So, please, don't claim that if I don't support GWB it's because I hate America or don't want us to be strong. (And, I note, John, that these comments are not personally directed at you, because I don't think you've made any ad hominem attacks, which is why I continue this dialogue.)
What do I believe needs to be done to win the war against the jihadists? First and foremost, we need to make sure that we have the best defenses possible against nukes entering this country. We can't overlook our ports. Years before 9/11, the National Security Counsel had identified a nuke on a barge as being the single most significant threat to American security, and the danger that we should address first. President Bush, by the way, didn't do anything about it then (because he wanted to pursue a missle defense system) and he still hasn't done much.
Second, we need to change the corrupt foundation of Arab society. The reason the Arabs are so pissed at us is because we're so rich and they, except for their corrupt leaders, are so poor. We need to start with the Saudi Royal Family. Wahabbism is the ideological basis for what's going on in the Middle East. But, more important in my view is the fact that they live in a feudal system, where somehow they've convinced all of their subjects that the royal family is ordained by God to have all the Mercedes Benzes and other good stuff, and nobody else is entitled to squat. Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, who has rejected the corrupt royal family. In fact, many Middle East watchers believe that Osama's real target in the 9/11 attacks was the Saudis. There were many good articles about this in the Wall Street Journal in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks.
Third, we need to figure out how to create opportunities for wealth creation in the Middle East. We need them to get a middle class. We can't do this if all of their leaders remain corrupt. Somehow, we have to tap into the secular movements in Iran, Egypt, Jordan and other places where they have a chance of taking hold from within. There was an excellent special on PBS by Tom Friedman a couple of years ago about which summed up Arab discontent as humiliation. They're humiliated by their poverty. They used to have an amazing, vibrant culture, and now they're a bunch of dirt farmers. I believe it's the case that the GDP of all 16 Arab nations combined is less than that of Spain. Now that we've invaded Iraq, the only thing we can to do advance this goal is to try to create a middle class in Iraq. The Kurds were able to do this after the Gulf War. If we can spread it to the rest of Iraq, it will be a great boon to peace in the Middle East.
Fifth, we need to convince Arab leaders to start speaking out against the jihadists. This has proven very difficult to do, and I don't know how you do it. But, it's essential.
Sixth, we need to continue to kick the towel heads in the ass in a violent, military sense. We need to go through them like crap through a goose. But, we have to be conscious in doing so that this scares the crap out of the rest of the world. Our military is fearsome. Kind of like the Roman Legions must have been in days of old. Friend or foe, you don't want the American military playing war in your neighborhood.
Finally, we need to have the rest of the free world helping us in points one through six as much as possible. We need other Western leaders to help us win the war of ideas, even if they don't help us win the military battles.
So, to sum up, the reason I'm not happy with Bush is that I don't think merely doing a good job on the military front in Iraq will help us win the war against the jihadists. I don't even believe invading Iraq was a good step in that war. Now that we're there, we can hopefully turn it into what we need it to be. But, I don't think Bush can get it done in a way that will help us win the war.
Post a Comment
<< Home